> How many bankrupcies would have been avoided if they didn't > have to pay monopoly rents on software?
As far as I know: none. The only times I've seen companies hurt by software purchases is when the purchase was completely mismanaged, buying a system designed and priced for managing 1000+ units when their totals will never exceed 100, for example. It slowed them down, they lost business, but they're happily paying the yearly service contract because the bosses get colour charts of the day's business during that day (not that they have ever acted on the information, but it's in colour!). They are still in business, by the way.
It's also rare to find a license that costs more per employee than the cost of the employee using it, at least in North America, so it's hard to argue that it is the software supplier's fault for charging so much that it forced them to close their doors.
The only main case for this argument that I can come up with is when a company is just keeping it's head above water and any form of cost increase will sink them, software, rent, wages, and the software just came first at the finish line.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | The problem with your analysis is that it supposes everyone is | motivated by what the imagine will happen to themselves.
The problem with this atitude is that those other than oneself tend to be selected rather randomly, and if someone is not on that most favored others list, they tend to be completely worthless. You have demonstrated a serious lack of respect for those who are not on your most favored others list, including your disloyalty to your boss that first made me aware of your tendencies, and then your utter disrespect for those you think do something wrong. Respect for others start with respect for oneself, and I think it is impossible to acquire or maintain that value if you are not _aware_ that you cannot escape originating your own interests, including those for others. But then again, I tend to distrust people who devote their efforts to "aid" the poor by means that ensure that they cannot get back on their own two feet without such aid. You have, for instance, shown us your interest in giving people food for free, but this also means that there is no way the people who get it for free could get a working market started where they could make a living growing food on their own. Considering that the financial instruments of modern society were all invented by farmers back when farming was the most advanced thing we could do, what you do by giving away food is not only to deprive them of a market, you deprive of all incentive to grasp the concepts of economy. This will ensure that you will keep on giving them food they could not have gotten on their own, and they will in turn be very grateful to you. I have a very low opinion of people who base the value they expect others to see in them on the gratefulness that they receive from people they have forced into a situation they cannot escape.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > You have demonstrated a serious lack of respect for those who are > not on your most favored others list, including your disloyalty to > your boss that first made me aware of your tendencies, and then your > utter disrespect for those you think do something wrong.
Nice to see that you avoid the ad hominem.
> Respect for others start with respect for oneself, and I think it is > impossible to acquire or maintain that value if you are not _aware_ > that you cannot escape originating your own interests, including > those for others.
I think your verbosity and obtuse style shows a great disrespect for us.
-- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > | The problem with your analysis is that it supposes everyone is > | motivated by what the imagine will happen to themselves.
> The problem with this atitude is that those other than oneself tend to be > selected rather randomly, and if someone is not on that most favored > others list, they tend to be completely worthless.
Huh? Where is this coming from?
> You have demonstrated > a serious lack of respect for those who are not on your most favored > others list, including your disloyalty to your boss that first made me > aware of your tendencies, and then your utter disrespect for those you > think do something wrong.
Huh? What exactly do you mean by "disloyalty to [my] boss"? Is this just your habit of slander or is there something more going on?
> But then again, I tend to distrust people who devote their efforts > to "aid" the poor by means that ensure that they cannot get back > on their own two feet without such aid.
Well, I distrust people who figure they know what's best for the poor without ever talking to them. That's where I start; it's really mind-opening. Kinda scary for a mind as firmly clamped shut as yours, I imagine.
> I have a very low opinion of people who base the value they expect > others to see in them on the gratefulness that they receive from > people they have forced into a situation they cannot escape.
I don't work to help the poor because I expect gratefulness in return. I work to help them because they are starving.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Huh? Where is this coming from?
Think about it.
| Huh? What exactly do you mean by "disloyalty to [my] boss"? Is this | just your habit of slander or is there something more going on?
You have argued in this very newsgroup for going behind your boss's back to use Lisp. Do you not remember this? I do. Such comments tell me; "Do _not_ hire this guy." I tend to remember such things.
| Well, I distrust people who figure they know what's best for the poor | without ever talking to them. That's where I start; it's really | mind-opening. Kinda scary for a mind as firmly clamped shut as yours, I | imagine.
Yeah, you demonstrate that open-mindedness so eloquently there. And to think that you are concerned with hypocrisy. I am actually amused.
| I don't work to help the poor because I expect gratefulness in return. I | work to help them because they are starving.
And you give them free food so you take away their means of creating a market for food. Brilliant. They will starve and need you tomorrow, too. If you really wanted to help them, you would want to make yourself superfluous, instead. Of course, that would make it harder to talk about how great you are to people who are not here.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > | Huh? What exactly do you mean by "disloyalty to [my] boss"? Is this > | just your habit of slander or is there something more going on?
> You have argued in this very newsgroup for going behind your boss's back > to use Lisp. Do you not remember this? I do. Such comments tell me; > "Do _not_ hire this guy." I tend to remember such things.
Um, geez, you totally misunderstood me, but then, that's normal for you.
In any case, if you have an actual accusation to make, then make it. There have certainly been times where I was told by a supervisor not to do something, and I knew it was the right thing to do, did it anyway, and was thanked for it.
> And you give them free food so you take away their means of creating a > market for food.
Really? Hrm, of course you told me that you thought it was never harmful to offer someone a choice. But then you don't have opinions, you just have reactions.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Um, geez, you totally misunderstood me, but then, that's normal for | you.
I am not your projections. Quit being such a dishonest bastard that you confuse your conclusions and your observation and try to make others share your conclusions. They can reach their own conclusions, but somehow I think you do not trust them to reach the same conclusions you do, so they need your "help".
| In any case, if you have an actual accusation to make, then make it.
You are an evil person, destructive, disrespectful, toying with people because you probably have no way to prove me wrong when I point out that you are an intellectualy dishonest and very destructive person.
| Really? Hrm, of course you told me that you thought it was never harmful | to offer someone a choice.
I never said any such thing. You "misunderstand" on purpose in order to make me look foolish when my own words and what I actually say could not accomplish that, and you know it, or you would simply have been able to refute my arguments. But then again, what I want from my fellow men is a symptom of _thinking_ about issues, but you do not exhibit any symptoms of that.
| But then you don't have opinions, you just have reactions.
That must be why you keep posting insults and lies about me. You just made yourself so much worse, but then again, you cannot even discuss things civilly in personal mail, so this is pure evil on your part.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > You are an evil person, destructive, disrespectful, toying with people > because you probably have no way to prove me wrong when I point out that > you are an intellectualy dishonest and very destructive person.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I simply don't intend to dance around providing you reactions you eagerly crave from others.
If you think I'm evil, well, I take that a high praise.
> That must be why you keep posting insults and lies about me. You just > made yourself so much worse, but then again, you cannot even discuss > things civilly in personal mail, so this is pure evil on your part.
Oh, now I'm pure evil! Whee, what fun!
Now suddenly you're angry, upset, and ever-more-vicious. And nothing makes your more angry, upset, and vicious, than my open acknowledgement of how important it is for you to be that way, and my desire to do nothing to stop you.
Quite the contrary Erik: I don't want to disprove you, I just want to watch you twist. I'm sure that you're a nice person in many ways; but on Usenet you play a clown exceedingly well, and I'm enjoying watching you.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | I don't need to prove you wrong. I simply don't intend to dance | around providing you reactions you eagerly crave from others.
Please quit projecting yourself onto me.
| Now suddenly you're angry, upset, and ever-more-vicious.
Please quit projecting yourself onto me.
| And nothing makes your more angry, upset, and vicious, than my open | acknowledgement of how important it is for you to be that way, and my | desire to do nothing to stop you.
Please quit projecting yourself onto me.
| Quite the contrary Erik: I don't want to disprove you, I just want to | watch you twist. I'm sure that you're a nice person in many ways; but on | Usenet you play a clown exceedingly well, and I'm enjoying watching you.
Please quit projecting yourself onto me.
| And *that* seems to have you really upset. Weird.
I think you are providing the world with a lot more information about yourself than you are ready to understand at this point. I look forward to the time when you figure out what you have done. Those who have gone before you on that path have generally been very, very quiet afterwards. A quiet Thomas Bushnell would be a remarkably good thing. You will keep posting until you understand, if only keep such understanding at bay. You will continue to portray more and more of yourself onto me, because you _have_ to kill that monster that has reared its ugly head within, and the only way to _really_ get rid of it is to quit life, as you are stuck in yourself. I actually appreciate that you have begun to self-destruct. If ou enjoy this so much, please use Google to watch how others of your kind have gone completely to pieces at the end of their USENET carreers.
Your need to pretend that you are playing with others is interesting. It is _such_ a good indicator that you have lost control and have to work so hard to pretend to regain it. But this all shows that you do not take part in USENET discussions in order to discuss anything, learn anything, share any insight you might have, or try to educate others, you take part in USENET discussions in order to assassinate other people's character and play with them and destroy the utility of the forum. My mistake is to hope that your kind is able to think and actually come to USENET in order to take part in the _purpose_ of the newsgroups they post to. It is clearly impossible for low quality people like yourself to understand that you do in fact receive reactions to your own hostile behavior and cease and desist: To such people as yourself, the conclusion is that you can now elicit "reactions" form other people, and then you go ahead to do more bad. When you get a stronger negative raactions, you want not only to do bad things, but to take personal revenge and have to try to paint a portrait of your opponent such that you can defend your own behavior. It is fairly classical criminal behavior. It is nice to see that you have reached your final stage, however.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
> > You are an evil person, destructive, disrespectful, toying with people > > because you probably have no way to prove me wrong when I point out that > > you are an intellectualy dishonest and very destructive person.
> I don't need to prove you wrong. I simply don't intend to dance > around providing you reactions you eagerly crave from others.
Sometimes Webster's is really cool:
``His path is one that eminently craves weary walking.'' -- Edmund Gurney
> If you think I'm evil, well, I take that a high praise.
Oh, do you? What are you? A troll?
> > That must be why you keep posting insults and lies about me. You just > > made yourself so much worse, but then again, you cannot even discuss > > things civilly in personal mail, so this is pure evil on your part.
> Oh, now I'm pure evil! Whee, what fun!
No, that's not funny, actually.
> Now suddenly you're angry, upset, and ever-more-vicious. And > nothing makes your more angry, upset, and vicious, than my open > acknowledgement of how important it is for you to be that way, > and my desire to do nothing to stop you.
``To do nothing to stop him''. Uhuh. Well, to direct your desires to a more productive direction, you might want to have a look at google for how nice comp.lang.lisp was between the departure of our last troll, some atrocious Frenchman, JFB, and your arrival. Everybody was happy, everything was about Lisp. Now, everything is about flaming each other, and Kent felt the need to take a break again. It is you who caused that. I am not telling you to go away, but you could try to recall the more fruitful threads you were involved in, you were even discussing with Erik in sensible ways; why don't you try more of that style again? It is all up to you: Continue stirring everything up or return to useful discussion. Sure, you think it's not your fault, but quite a few people who've been longer around than you think you are wrong on this. Why this arrogance? Why are you so sure that you know everything better, although you're new here? Can't you back up a bit and be more gentle?
> Quite the contrary Erik: I don't want to disprove you, I just want to > watch you twist. I'm sure that you're a nice person in many ways; but > on Usenet you play a clown exceedingly well, and I'm enjoying watching > you.
So you think this is all for your amusement only? Or what?
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes: > Oh, do you? What are you? A troll?
Oh, no. A brief search of Usenet on groups.google.com shows that "troll" is much more associated with Erik.
When someone behaves as badly as he does, I regard their attempts at being insulting as high praise, for the simple reason that their measurements seem totally reversed from reality.
Now, one in a position such as me should do a reality check. Let's see. Do I engage in massive flame wars everywhere I go? Nope. Do I call people idiots? Does Erik? Hrm, constantly.
This is a lesson from the kindergarten playground. If there's one kid that gets in fights with everybody, it's probably his fault.
> When someone behaves as badly as he does, I regard their attempts at > being insulting as high praise, for the simple reason that their > measurements seem totally reversed from reality.
I don't really see why. You're basically saying that his compass is reliably pointing in the wrong direction, when it's probably more accurate to say that it's spinning wildly.
As such, his insults can neither be taken to be praise nor, well, insults.
-- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> I don't really see why. You're basically saying that his compass is > reliably pointing in the wrong direction, when it's probably more > accurate to say that it's spinning wildly.
> As such, his insults can neither be taken to be praise nor, well, > insults.
Ah, quite right, my mistake.
Yeah, they actually cease to have any cognitive content at all; they aren't properly *assertions* of anything.
> Oh, no. A brief search of Usenet on groups.google.com shows that > "troll" is much more associated with Erik.
I don't have to look at google, because I've been following comp.lang.lisp for years, other than you, obviously.
> When someone behaves as badly as he does,
He doesn't. It is really you who is the offender here. You have already shown a capability of learning to adapt to a new environment, by stopping to post Scheme propaganda, for instance. Thank you very much for this. Now please go on: Watch how thinks work here before trying to change everything. Some modesty would really be nice. When people tell you you're doing something wrong, *believe* them, even if you don't immediately understand, why. Jeez, I've been lurking here for /years/ before opening my mouth that wide.
> I regard their attempts at being insulting as high praise,
You really shouldn't do that. Some humility, please.
> for the simple reason that their measurements seem totally > reversed from reality.
And that impression could not've been caused by a lack of understanding on your side?
> Now, one in a position such as me should do a reality check. Let's > see. Do I engage in massive flame wars everywhere I go? Nope.
Yes, *you do*, for chrissake! That's your whole appearance, here!
> Do I call people idiots? Does Erik? Hrm, constantly.
Not without reason :-)
> This is a lesson from the kindergarten playground. If there's one kid > that gets in fights with everybody, it's probably his fault.
Indeed. Think about this some more :-)
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes: > You have already shown a capability of learning to adapt to a new > environment, by stopping to post Scheme propaganda, for instance.
Please cite some Scheme propaganda that I posted. This is one of Erik's little lies; repeat it enough and people start to believe it.
> > You have already shown a capability of learning to adapt to a new > > environment, by stopping to post Scheme propaganda, for instance.
> Please cite some Scheme propaganda that I posted. This is one of > Erik's little lies; repeat it enough and people start to believe it.
I am not going to make the google monkey, here. Several of your early posts here were Scheme propaganda; sometimes more, sometimes less subtle, but always recognizable. Kent described that very nicely; now that I remember that, I think I /will/ do the google monkey:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > | Why should I care about professional developers that much? Do you have > | any clue how much the monopoly rents on copies of software cost the > | average American company? How many bankrupcies would have been avoided > | if they didn't have to pay monopoly rents on software?
> I do not think anybody can reasonably be expected to know this just to > make the kinds of arguments we have around here,
true... true... OTOH, I did hear one bright IT guy say Oracle had been the death of the most companies since the Great Depression. Hyperbole, sure, but I have heard that crud is insanely expensive (both to license and to live with since you need their $$$$$ people just to get it to work).
--
kenny tilton clinisys, inc --------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't you just hate it when you run out of ice?" Arthur
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Aw, does it make you feel bad to have people talk about you in | unflattering tones?
It has no possible constructive function in this newsgroup, but is an obvious personal exchange between you two, who have found something you can gang up on, nonthinkingly, yet apparently uniting in your affinity for toying with people. Yet another bystander has entered the game, willing to fight, but not to help reduce what he obviously considers bad. Thus the badness increases and when two bad people gang up on one, the result is much more evil than one bad person acting alone, because you are able to drive up eachothers hatred and hostility unchecked. This is the group frenzy of hateful mobs in miniature. Most people are smart and ethical enough to figure this out, and stay out of such situations and do not cheer people on, either. As soon as some immoral idiot does, more people feel compelled to join the fray, which is why you should not cheer eachother on, but stop to think about what you do. You two do not, which indicates that this is not a desire to see change for the better in this newsgroup, it is only a desire to hurt and destroy. There is no longer any doubt about your character or your goals, Thomas Bushnell.
You two are now _only_ being destructive here. Cease and desist.
This is only a reaction to your behavior. No action on your part, no reaction on mine is necessary. Everybody knows what I think of evil bastards like you, but you keep obsessing about posting your hatred for that monster you have given my name in your deluded mind, and that is, frankly, annoying. I do not feel bad when people of your moral caliber show their true nature. You do not elicit such emotion, only disgust that you keep posting and making it necessary to respond to you in the hopes that you will shut the fuck up, but you are not going to, are you?
Cease and desist, Thomas Bushnell. _You_ are the aggressor.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > It has no possible constructive function in this newsgroup, but is an > obvious personal exchange between you two, who have found something you > can gang up on, nonthinkingly, yet apparently uniting in your affinity > for toying with people.
This, from Mr. Flame and Mr. Insult?
Incidentally, you'll notice that I haven't posted any sort of thing that you seem to find so horrible except in response to yours...though perhaps I may have slipped and carelessly violated that rule, for which I apologize.
If you object to my fun, then it's really pretty easy: don't post hostile things to or about me.
Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes: > I am not going to make the google monkey, here. Several of your > early posts here were Scheme propaganda; sometimes more, > sometimes less subtle, but always recognizable. Kent described > that very nicely; now that I remember that, I think I /will/ do > the google monkey:
Hrm, I think the tendency of some *other* people (I'm told Tom Lord was like this) to have a Scheme chip on their shoulder in every post has for some reason bled over into discussions that *aren't* about that.
The reference to Kent's article that you provide is a good one, but I think you missed the point that I was making, and that Kent was criticizing.
Kent rightly pointed out that certain kinds of questions and design issues indicate that one might be better suited for a different sort of language.
But what I think he missed in that post is that I wasn't asking those kinds of questions...I had said "an article that says Common Lisp sucks is not an article about Scheme". Now Kent is right that *some* kind of "common lisp sucks" articles *are* really articles about Scheme.
However:
1) If the person posting them is, as Kent acknowledged, perhaps unaware that Scheme is the language for them, or the way in which their questions point naturally in that direction, then it's wrong to describe them as "propoganda".
2) I wasn't actually posting articles that said "Common Lisp sucks". In fact, every time it's come up, I said that Common Lisp is pretty darn good, and solves the problems it sets out to solve very well.
3) You had expressed an objection to "hundreds of articles about Scheme". Leaving aside the hyperbole, in that context, even the sorts of articles that Kent points out might "lead to Scheme", are not articles about Scheme in that sense.
I entered this discussion because of Kent's rather intriguing proposition that free software is without value (which I hope he'll expand upon when he returns), and then got sidetracked into yet another discussion about Erik.
I'm sorry about that. It's probably been more embarrassing to watch than it has been entertaining.
-- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> > I am not going to make the google monkey, here. Several of your > > early posts here were Scheme propaganda; sometimes more, > > sometimes less subtle, but always recognizable. Kent described > > that very nicely; now that I remember that, I think I /will/ do > > the google monkey:
> Hrm, I think the tendency of some *other* people (I'm told Tom Lord > was like this) to have a Scheme chip on their shoulder in every post > has for some reason bled over into discussions that *aren't* about > that.
> The reference to Kent's article that you provide is a good one, but I > think you missed the point that I was making, and that Kent was > criticizing.
> Kent rightly pointed out that ...
Yes, yes, ok, fine. Look, I am not asking you to defend yourself, I am not asking you to repent, I am not asking you to apologize. All I am asking you is to stop discussing this to death. There is no need to. Just stop contributing to this flamewar, and everything will be fine. As was happening before, when you were posting technical stuff, everybody was nice to you, and glad about your contributions. You already indicated that you weren't interested in continuing this until eternity, so just stop -- stop this thread, stop attacking Erik or certain other people you disregard out of the blue (yes, you did. google for yourself before saying it's not true), and the great peace in comp.lang.lisp that had already been proclaimed can happily continue again :-)
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
> I entered this discussion because of Kent's rather intriguing > proposition that free software is without value (which I hope he'll > expand upon when he returns), and then got sidetracked into yet > another discussion about Erik.
> I'm sorry about that. It's probably been more embarrassing to watch > than it has been entertaining.
Thanks very much for this honorable gesture. But why have you people taken this ``value'' thing so seriously? When I read what Kent posted, I thought it was merely a joke: Just take an economical definition of value, and voila: Free Software has no value; there is nothing to be upset about, because ``value'' has a thousand of different meanings, and just that such and such a thing you like has no ``value'' under a certain definition of the term is really no reason to raise blood pressure, is it?
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
